Zocdoc co-founder and former CEO Cyrus Massoumi desires to be reinstalled as the corporate’s CEO, alleging a set of executives organized an “elaborate, multi-step scheme” to oust him from his management position in 2015, in keeping with a lawsuit filed Tuesday.
Massoumi is suing Oliver Kharraz, the corporate’s co-founder, CEO and a member of the board; Netta Samroengraja, chief enterprise officer; and Nikhil Ganju, co-founder and a member of the board for alleged fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud. The criticism was filed Tuesday in New York state courtroom.
Massoumi, who served as Zocdoc’s CEO for eight years after the corporate’s founding in 2007, within the criticism alleges that the three executives executed a fraudulent “coup” at a November 2015 board of administrators assembly to close him out of his CEO and chairman roles.
That included falsely telling Massoumi that the assembly would cowl routine issues in order that he was unable to organize, allegedly making a “pretend” agenda and different supplies that the executives did not really plan to ship on the assembly, in keeping with the criticism.
Through the assembly, the Kharraz and Ganju assumed voting management for shares beforehand held by Massoumi, offering them with majority management of Zocdoc, in keeping with the criticism.
Kharraz, Ganju and a board member elected by Khosla Ventures allegedly voted to take away Massoumi from his position as CEO, changing him with Kharraz. A month later, in December, Kharraz then advised Massoumi he had been faraway from the corporate’s board of administrators, which Massoumi argues is invalid since minority shareholders weren’t notified of his removing.
The criticism alleges that if Massoumi had identified the executives’ plans for the assembly, he may have exercised inventory choices to take majority management of the corporate, stopping his ouster.
“Mr. Massoumi was able to stop the coup, however the lies and misleading façade perpetrated by the defendants robbed him of the chance to take action,” the criticism reads.
Zocdoc, a privately held firm that lets sufferers e book appointments with collaborating suppliers on-line, has denied claims within the lawsuit.
“The claims on this lawsuit are with out advantage,” a Zocdoc spokesperson advised Fashionable Healthcare through e mail. “We is not going to remark additional on this pending litigation right now.”
The criticism alleges that within the months main as much as the board of administrators assembly, the executives had not expressed objection to Massoumi’s administration or causes to take away him as CEO.
Nevertheless, Massoumi had been actively looking out to rent replacements for Kharraz, who then served as COO, and Samroengraja, who then served as CFO, because of “constantly sub-par efficiency,” in keeping with the criticism. He reportedly had deliberate to maintain them employed in different roles on the firm,
Massoumi had been contemplating asking Ganju to go away the corporate.
“Recognizing that their futures with the corporate had been doubtful, Mr. Ganju, Mr. Kharraz, and Ms. Samroengraja orchestrated an elaborate, multi-step scheme to take away Mr. Massoumi from his positions at Zocdoc and completely shut him out of administration of the corporate,” reads the criticism, alleging the defendants secured and superior their positions by ousting Massoumi.
The criticism alleges Zocdoc’s success has fallen since Massoumi’s departure, noting that, based mostly on public info, Zocdoc since 2015 has not raised new enterprise capital funding. Fourteen executives have left the corporate since 2015, in keeping with the criticism.
Along with financial damages, Massoumi is in search of declarations that his removing as Zocdoc CEO and chairman of the board of administrators was invalid, and that he ought to subsequently stay in these roles, in keeping with the criticism. The criticism additionally alleges that every one actions taken by Zocdoc’s board since at the very least December 2015 are invalid and void.
“Whereas Mr. Massoumi is entitled to financial damages, such damages for previous hurt wouldn’t suffice to compensate him for the continuing hurt of exclusion from any position at Zocdoc,” the criticism reads. “The courtroom ought to train its discretion to grant declaratory aid to handle the actual harms at situation.”